#meeting:fedoraproject.org log

<@fale:fale.io>

17:00:59

!startmeeting FESCO (2025-04-29)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:01:03

!meetingname fesco

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:01:08

Meeting started at 2025-04-29 17:00:59 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:01:08

The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2025-04-29)'

<@fale:fale.io>

17:01:08

!group members fesco

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:01:12

The Meeting Name is now fesco

<@fale:fale.io>

17:01:13

!topic Init Process

<@fale:fale.io>

17:01:17

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:18

Members of fesco: David Cantrell, Fabio Valentini, Fabio Alessandro Locati, Tomáš Hrčka, Kevin Fenzi, Matthew Miller, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), Michel Lind, Stephen Gallagher, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:01:23

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:26

Fabio Alessandro Locati (fale) - he / him / his

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:26

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:02:15

morning

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:02:58

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:01

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:04:01

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:04:02

Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his

<@fale:fale.io>

17:04:18

we have the quorum, but let's wait another minute to see if someone else arrives as well :)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:05:17

!topic #3390 Allow "interactive gating" for bodhi updates that fail CoreOS tests

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:07:30

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:31

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@fale:fale.io>

17:07:32

!fesco 3390

<@fale:fale.io>

17:07:32

I think the majority of commenter were in favor of CoreOS SIG members joining releng, but I did not saw a clear voting on this

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:40

**fesco #3390** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3390):**Allow "interactive gating" for bodhi updates that fail CoreOS tests**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:40

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:40

● **Last Updated:** 19 hours ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:40

● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by dustymabe

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:07:40

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:08:17

do we need to vote on that? if the flow is just to join releng and nirik is OK with that

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:08:29

yeah

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:09:10

I don't know that we need a vote... was anyone opposed?

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:09:28

No, a few votes in support and otherwise silence.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:09:37

if we need to vote formally I'm happy to +1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:09:52

I'm +1 to having CoreOS folks join releng

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:09:54

me too

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:10:02

I'm -1 to giving CoreOS a special exception to bypass releng

<@fale:fale.io>

17:10:02

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:10:03

sure, +1

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:11:01

in principle, I am not particularly convinced that this should be a thing at all

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:11:02

I was +1 in the ticket

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:11:24

untagging things should be extraordinary, not regular

<@fale:fale.io>

17:11:42

!decision AGREED (+6,0,-0)

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:11:49

right

<@fale:fale.io>

17:11:51

Yes, I agree with Neal

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:12:12

I'm more concerned that this was considered a sensible request at all.

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:13:26

FWIW, I'm happy that the coreos folks are trying DTRT and engage in QA in the normal Fedora workflows. The details can be figure out.

<@fale:fale.io>

17:15:04

!agreed some CoreOS SIG members will join releng (6,0,-0)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:15:16

!topic #3394 Add Docker Plugin RPMs to Update Policy Exception List

<@fale:fale.io>

17:15:21

!fesco 3394

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:15:28

● **Opened:** a week ago by buckaroogeek

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:15:28

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:15:28

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:15:28

● **Last Updated:** 20 hours ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:15:28

**fesco #3394** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3394):**Add Docker Plugin RPMs to Update Policy Exception List**

<@fale:fale.io>

17:16:12

I see only 3 +1s in this one

<@fale:fale.io>

17:16:40

and many comments, not disagreeing, though progressing the conversation

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:17:30

I guess I can be +1...

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:18:22

I was going to +1 but then from gotmax's comments it does not even seem necessary?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:18:45

ah gotmax said it's fine for at least some of the plugins

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:18:46

so +1

<@fale:fale.io>

17:19:22

Fabio Valentini: you said in the ticket that you are "generally +1", does this include this specific case?

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:21:08

yes, I meant "in general this seems sensible request but it doesn't seem strictly necessary in this case"

<@fale:fale.io>

17:21:18

oh, sorry :)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:21:20

!agreed update policy exception granted (6,0,-0)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:21:59

!topic #3385 Change: Java25 And No More System JDK

<@fale:fale.io>

17:22:05

!fesco 3385

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:22:13

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:22:13

● **Assignee:** jvanek

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:22:13

● **Last Updated:** 8 hours ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:22:13

**fesco #3385** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3385):**Change: Java25 And No More System JDK**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:22:13

● **Opened:** 4 weeks ago by amoloney

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:22:25

did someone rewrite this change document to be understandable yet?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:22:36

I'm not up for another round of confusion :)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:22:45

this one was not in the list for today, but there has been updates so if we want to comment it we can :)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:23:05

I personally do not like the external link that is "required" to make more sense of the proposal

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:23:35

can we ask someone to refresh the change document then?

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:24:32

the only thing I remain confused about is that the two change owners seem to disagree whether packages should get proactively updated to use OpenJDK 25 or not, and whether the default should change or not ...

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:25:11

There was some mention of 'can't change the proposal', but... why not? shouldn't have to keep adding.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:26:08

maybe

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:26:08

> Being unable to remove anything from proposal

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:26:08

this was meant to say "everything there is important, I don't *want* to drop anything"?

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:26:08

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:26:08

<@fale:fale.io>

17:26:12

Jvanek changed the proposal multiple times today: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/Java25AndNoMoreSystemJdk&action=history so it does not seem a technical issue

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:26:20

ah, could be I misread that yeah

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:27:21

so, everyone please ask more questions/read the changes and we will invite change owner next week?

<@fale:fale.io>

17:28:38

works for me. I would prefer if the proposal is clear enough by next that we can vote it without the need of the change proposal re-explaining it to us another time, but better safe than sorry :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:31:14

same

<@fale:fale.io>

17:31:23

!topic Next week's chair

<@fale:fale.io>

17:31:25

any takers?

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:31:48

I can do it.

<@fale:fale.io>

17:31:58

!action zbyszek will chair next meeting

<@fale:fale.io>

17:32:01

thanks zbyszek :)

<@fale:fale.io>

17:32:07

!topic Open Floor

<@fale:fale.io>

17:32:39

I have one OF topic: Do we have any info on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3305 ?

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:33:24

Aoife Moloney answered that query in devel?

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:33:30

"I have an action to write a draft of the council statement on the issue, it's in the works and I should have something to share with FESCo members and peter by tomorrow for review before we publish it"

<@fale:fale.io>

17:34:39

uh, missed that! Sorry

<@fale:fale.io>

17:35:03

no other points from my side then :)

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:35:36

One quick plea from me...

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:36:26

we have a number of packager-sponsor requests open. https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues it would be great if folks could pick through them and find people who still need sponsoring, etc.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:36:51

we should close old ones, but I have not had any time to investigate if they are just old or now unwanted

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:36:58

I am working on https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/714

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:38:20

thats all from me

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

17:40:26

Oh, and https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issue/702 has asked to be reconsidered. ;) please add comments...

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>

17:40:59

I need to go. See you next week.

<@fale:fale.io>

17:41:09

!endmeeting